I like the current model that combines both preprint and peer review. Nothing is perfect but having both is helpful in balancing the downsides of each. We just updated our preprint based on extensive feedback—including yours.
Caught errors, added citations, clarified sentences.
Yeah lots of positives but not perfect. Some good stuff gets stuck. Some not so good stuff gets through—sometimes just oversight. I saw one paper ignoring immortal time bias, another misleading framing about survival rates. Both peer-reviewed. Oversight likely.
-
-
A robust preprint process can really help with things that authors themselves would correct/add if pointed out. It did with us. Systematically went through the criticisms, suggestions... Better for everyone.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.